@PeterMac wrote:Are they doing this deliberately ? Do they have a death wish ? Or is it mere crass incompetence on the part of ID ?We saw in the TB trial that their star witness tried to sneak something past the Judge, but was not successful, and had to admit that there was no evidence for what she had tried to get entered into the record.Here one of their star "witnesses" - who seems not to be a witness in any conventional meaning of the term -, tried to sneak something under the wire, and has been caught out.Two other "witnesses" have tried to sneak thinks past, and have also been caught out when challenged about dates, numbers of occasions, and so forth.You would think they would have been better selected, (or better briefed !)

Me think it is crass incompetence on the part of ID. Just look how she dropped the Mccanns in.

ID - The McCann couple didn't react immediately to the book, why?EL - explains their priority was looking for Madeleine, not to be concerned by the publication of this book. In the beginning they had no idea about its possible effects. But it became clear in the following months.

But isnt that what people have observed, and team Amaral has been asking all along? If they object to book contents why wait one year to complain?

ID - Question missing, likely "To what is due the effect of the book?"EL - thinks that the "nice, easy conclusion" explains the success of the book. There were many interviews and articles about the book, it was a kind of media tsunami. This upset and harmed more and more the McCanns. The documentary that claimed their daughter was dead and that they concealed the body created a lot of pain. It spread rapidly on the internet, with subtitles, millions of people watched it.

ID - How do you know that millions of people watched it?EL - knows that two million watched it in the UK, but doesn't know how many outside of the UK. She says before the book and the documentary, Kate and Gerald lived calmly, many people in the world were ready to help them, they were strong and stoic, they didn't allow themselves anxiety because they had to find Madeleine. Then the book was published and they fell into despair because the people whose help they needed thought Madeleine was dead. It became very difficult to be strong enough to go on looking for Madeleine.

This is in total contradiction to one of EL's answers in which she said the mccanns were more ashamed of being arguidos than what the book says. That being the case, the damage was already done when they were arguidos, when the global mainstream was covering the case extensively bombarding the public with news of the case every day. If global scale mainstream with its bigger and wider audience does no damage, then why should the book? Essentially the book is saying the same things as reported by mainstream when they were arguidos.

Back in 2007 people were already told Maddie died in the apt and her parents involved. Discerning people would have come to a conclusion very early on. If they didnt, it's unlikely they would change their mind just because of a book. Either the public is a discerning one or not a discerning one.

ID - Did they lose the energy they had to search for their daughter?EL - answers they lost the hope but couldn't desist.

"lose energy" bad choice of words by ID. EL pull it back by using the word "hope".Which innocent parent lose energy to find their child?

ID - What was the first preoccupation for this couple?EL - says it was the fact people believed Madeleine was dead.

ID - And in relation to the twins (after the publication)?EL - says they worried a lot for the present day and also for the future. The twins were about to go to school and they could hear rumours. It was important that they understand that everything was done to find their sister (note: this is one of the main worries of Psychologist David Trickey, witness 4)

ID - In which documentaries did you participate?EL - corrects that she is actually the documentary maker. One was broadcast in May 2008, Madeleine McCann, one year on (ITV) and the other in May 2009, Madeleine was here (Ch4). In the first one she didn't use the word "abduction" and the McCanns, as arguidos, couldn't speak. The documentary is about the McCann European campaign.

ID - They were broadcast in how many countries in the EU?EL - doesn't know.

It's obvious ID didm't do her research. Given the names of the witnesses you would think she researched them in order to better prepare her questions, but her questions prove her crass incompetence.

ID - Are they based on the McCann couple's thesis (the abduction)?EL - answers that in the second documentary an investigator (David Edgar, witness 3) says there are many theories but they investigate it on the basis that it was an abduction.

This is a dead trap question. Instead of keeping the answer simple - EL drops Dave Edgar into it. If good o' Dave believes in many theories how would it be realistic to investigate based on just one?

These witnesses are either boobies or setting booby traps for themselves. You have to wonder whether they listen to themselves, or whether they realiise their answers do not support their conviction of belief (based on hearsay).

The lines of questioning by ID, and the answers gotten from witnesses show they have lost the plot. Their case just have no leg to stand on.

@tasprin wrote:Another thing that bothers me is lawyer Isabel Duarte's comments to the media outside the courtroom. She made an accusation that GA had hidden the profits from his book and the money could not be found. Although I don't know much about the law, I know the courts froze his assets and so this strikes me as an accusation of criminality. She clearly make this comment for the benefit of the press, no doubt being fully aware it would be repeated in media reports. The allegation was extremely prejudicial to GA, coming as it did on the first day of the trial, and if there was any basis to it why didn't she put it before the court. It's not the first time Duarte has tried to pull an allegation of criminality against GA. During the 2010 hearing she lodged a criminal complaint, which was subsequently thrown out, alleging he'd broken judicial secrecy laws - rich indeed coming from team McCann

Isabel is probably worried about her fee. The McCanns have an army of top lawyers to pay and taking a lawyer and a psychologist out to Lisbon must have cost a few bob. Their farcical case against Tony cost them dear, and if it was intended as a deterrent, it has had the opposite effect. The 'ten outrageous claims' printed in the Sun is not too dissimilar to the information Tony provided to the British public, merely set out under a different guise. What a shame we didn't think to tweet about the absurdity, that there is ONE man is this country who faces prison if he so much utters one of those 'claims' out loud.

But back to the indiscreet Isabel. In discussing the whereabouts of Dr. Amaral's money, the motives of the group became clear. Where were the indignant rebuttals of the book's claims? The importance of everyone looking for the child. Dave Edgar said in his evidence, the answer lies in Portugal. Why was Dr. Amaral's money at the top of Ms Duarte's thoughts? She might just as well say 'let's skip the trial, and just get him to hand over the cash'.

@tasprin wrote:Another thing that bothers me is lawyer Isabel Duarte's comments to the media outside the courtroom. She made an accusation that GA had hidden the profits from his book and the money could not be found. Although I don't know much about the law, I know the courts froze his assets and so this strikes me as an accusation of criminality. She clearly make this comment for the benefit of the press, no doubt being fully aware it would be repeated in media reports. The allegation was extremely prejudicial to GA, coming as it did on the first day of the trial, and if there was any basis to it why didn't she put it before the court. It's not the first time Duarte has tried to pull an allegation of criminality against GA. During the 2010 hearing she lodged a criminal complaint, which was subsequently thrown out, alleging he'd broken judicial secrecy laws - rich indeed coming from team McCann

Isabel is probably worried about her fee. The McCanns have an army of top lawyers to pay and taking a lawyer and a psychologist out to Lisbon must have cost a few bob. Their farcical case against Tony cost them dear, and if it was intended as a deterrent, it has had the opposite effect. The 'ten outrageous claims' printed in the Sun is not too dissimilar to the information Tony provided to the British public, merely set out under a different guise. What a shame we didn't think to tweet about the absurdity, that there is ONE man is this country who faces prison if he so much utters one of those 'claims' out loud.

But back to the indiscreet Isabel. In discussing the whereabouts of Dr. Amaral's money, the motives of the group became clear. Where were the indignant rebuttals of the book's claims? The importance of everyone looking for the child. Dave Edgar said in his evidence, the answer lies in Portugal. Why was Dr. Amaral's money at the top of Ms Duarte's thoughts? She might just as well say 'let's skip the trial, and just get him to hand over the cash'.

Ya, might as well point a gun to his head and say "money or your life!" Would be over much quicker.

Nicely put Cristobell. It does all feel rather transparent and desperate (the hoping to settle out of court then getting caught out when GA called their bluff). I do my utmost to help publicise the facts we know, even single things like 'Did you know that the McCanns brought a libel action against Amaral and then, as it came closer to trial, tried to settle out of court'. I love watching the eyebrows go up on that point; pretty much everybody knows what it implies. I did it to a taxi driver this morning :)

Don't ever forget that Team McCann - through Carter-Ruck - used evidence obtained by clear and undisputed criminal activity in their case against TB.

Indeed. As they also did when they got Leonor Cipriano to say Goncalo Amaral had tortured her, a lie that has seen her have her sentence extended. I wonder if Goncalo's lawyer will mention Metodo 3? It will be interesting to see the witnesses for the Defence.

Goncalo's and the other defendants' barristers are well prepared, they have always known that they were never going to back down. The mccanns' lawyers, maybe not so much. Apparently Isabel said the other day that an offer of settlement has always been on the table. That was quite an astonishing thing to say, but it certainly demonstrates how resolute Goncalo and the other defendants are. None of them it seems are prepared to pay the McCanns a penny.

@Woofer wrote:I`m starting to feel a bit sorry for all these naive women who Team McCann have sucked into their cesspit. Not just them either - many people`s reputations will have been damaged for good when the truth comes out (if it hasn`t already).

Just wondering if the `personal issue` that the judge had to attend to on Friday was to dash to an open space and scream.

I don't feel sorry for them because I think most of them are in it for their 15 min of fame, for their own benefit not just to help the McCanns.

I think none of them has ever done anything to find the facts. How can that tricky dicky say, with a straight face, that the twins have the right to know their parents protect them, while not only in Dr Amaral's book, but also in their mother's book and about everywhere in the media the outrageous neglect of their parents is published. Or does he really think this is within "responsible parenting" in which case he should loose his license.

I wonder how and what all these people would think if they were forced to listen to, to watch, and to read the real facts.

____________________"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?" Gerry

@tasprin wrote:Another thing that bothers me is lawyer Isabel Duarte's comments to the media outside the courtroom. She made an accusation that GA had hidden the profits from his book and the money could not be found. Although I don't know much about the law, I know the courts froze his assets and so this strikes me as an accusation of criminality. She clearly make this comment for the benefit of the press, no doubt being fully aware it would be repeated in media reports. The allegation was extremely prejudicial to GA, coming as it did on the first day of the trial, and if there was any basis to it why didn't she put it before the court. It's not the first time Duarte has tried to pull an allegation of criminality against GA. During the 2010 hearing she lodged a criminal complaint, which was subsequently thrown out, alleging he'd broken judicial secrecy laws - rich indeed coming from team McCann

Isabel is probably worried about her fee. The McCanns have an army of top lawyers to pay and taking a lawyer and a psychologist out to Lisbon must have cost a few bob. Their farcical case against Tony cost them dear, and if it was intended as a deterrent, it has had the opposite effect. The 'ten outrageous claims' printed in the Sun is not too dissimilar to the information Tony provided to the British public, merely set out under a different guise. What a shame we didn't think to tweet about the absurdity, that there is ONE man is this country who faces prison if he so much utters one of those 'claims' out loud.

But back to the indiscreet Isabel. In discussing the whereabouts of Dr. Amaral's money, the motives of the group became clear. Where were the indignant rebuttals of the book's claims? The importance of everyone looking for the child. Dave Edgar said in his evidence, the answer lies in Portugal. Why was Dr. Amaral's money at the top of Ms Duarte's thoughts? She might just as well say 'let's skip the trial, and just get him to hand over the cash'.

And where are the thoughts of Madeleine and her dignity in all of this, at the bottom of the pile as usual. Money, money, money is the be all and end all of the McCanns and their hangers on. Why would £1m from GA find Madeleine now, the McCanns have had £millions through their fingers, she hasn't been found so far after 6 years of farcical looking with dud PIs; SY have had £5m? with not a peep out of them, where is it all going to end?

@ProfessorPPlum wrote:Nicely put Cristobell. It does all feel rather transparent and desperate (the hoping to settle out of court then getting caught out when GA called their bluff). I do my utmost to help publicise the facts we know, even single things like 'Did you know that the McCanns brought a libel action against Amaral and then, as it came closer to trial, tried to settle out of court'. I love watching the eyebrows go up on that point; pretty much everybody knows what it implies. I did it to a taxi driver this morning :)

Yes, that point alone makes people think further. I saw Louis Spence on the Wright Show and he just about summed up the lethargic attitude of the majority towards this case. They accepted the first story they heard, abduction, and have never questioned it since, besides which they are doctors, so it is nonsense.

@plebgate wrote:SY must be aware of what is being said in this trial. Somebody is bound to send them the comments being made on the internet (maybe they already have). IMO they should re-interview the whole lot of the Tapas crew after this libel trial (whatever the verdict) because things certainly do not seem to add up re. Emma Loach doc. and statements let alone everything else that has been pointed out over the years.

This trial, be it the process or verdict, it has nothing to do with Grange or Grange investigation.

I hope the defendant's legal team in their closing summary points out the witnesses lies.It shouldn't be difficult for the Book Publisher,being part of the defend party, to prove whether or not Emma Loach lied.

Maybe it might be good if Defence Team can find out about the credibility of Dave Edgar's claim that he worked with Police Officers.If he's proven to have lied, then Grange might need to know why he lied.

Ultimately it would be good if Team Amaral were able to shoot down the credibility of the witnesses. If they were proven to have lied then everything they said can be binned .

That, precisely, is why in the real world: a you get a lawyer and b this lawyer earns a lot of money. To do just that.

This is with a small wink to my friend PeterMac, who hates lawyers, as any copper should

@plebgate wrote:SY must be aware of what is being said in this trial. Somebody is bound to send them the comments being made on the internet (maybe they already have). IMO they should re-interview the whole lot of the Tapas crew after this libel trial (whatever the verdict) because things certainly do not seem to add up re. Emma Loach doc. and statements let alone everything else that has been pointed out over the years.

This trial, be it the process or verdict, it has nothing to do with Grange or Grange investigation.

I hope the defendant's legal team in their closing summary points out the witnesses lies.It shouldn't be difficult for the Book Publisher,being part of the defend party, to prove whether or not Emma Loach lied.

Maybe it might be good if Defence Team can find out about the credibility of Dave Edgar's claim that he worked with Police Officers.If he's proven to have lied, then Grange might need to know why he lied.

Ultimately it would be good if Team Amaral were able to shoot down the credibility of the witnesses. If they were proven to have lied then everything they said can be binned .

No doubt that is one thing that GA's lawyer will be looking into so that they can disprove his statement when GA takes the stand and shoot his statement down in flames.

Speaking of money (as if the McCanns speak of anything else ), does anyone know if the 1.2M euros the couple want in damages is from all the defendants or just from Amaral? If the former, did they also seize assets from the other defendants just like they did Amaral?

@sallypelt wrote:I'd be far more worried about the twins seeing photographs, such as this one, taken at the time Kate released her "bewk" in Holland, and what information that that bewk contains.

Kate McCann describing her darkest thoughts which included images of "Madeleine's genitals being torn by a paedophile".

Yet, she still believes that Madeleine is alive, safe and well somewhere. She must think we all fell off the back of a turnip truck

Oh, by the way, team McCann's had this photograph "purged from the internet"

QUOTE We emailed the Daily Express to inquire, as the article (which referred to the picture) no longer made sense. The reply was astonishing, to say the very least.Apparently the Express received a message from the couple's "press office", indicating that they did not wish photographs to appear in the press that made them look "too happy." An unnamed Daily Express reporter kindly put it in context.

"So often pictured as a sad, withdrawn figure, she and husband Gerry burst into laughter as they promoted her book about their lost daughter Madeleine." removed

Hang on. If Edgar is claiming to have worked with the PJ all these years, wouldn't that suggest the PJ are still working on the case and haven't "given up on Maddie" like the McCanns continually claim?

@tasprin wrote:I'd like to know whether Dave Edgar's claim, that he worked with Portuguese for several years after the case was shelved, will be pursued.

I'd also like to know if Emma Loach's claim, that she saw Amaral's book on sale in a UK bookshops, will be pursued. How can she possibly be considered a credible witness when her answer is blatantly untrue? Given that the lawyer specifically asked her about the UK how will she explain this one?

c) Guerra & Paz's lawyer's questions

GUERRA & PAZ - Do you know if the book was published in the UK?

EMMA LOACH - says she saw it in bookshops

If they pursue it, they give her a chance to backtrack, "Oh I might have been mistaken ...I might have seen it while abroad ...blah de blah blah".

As her testimony stands, she saw the book for sale in the UK. Clear and unambiguous, 100%.

If the defense case later proves that the book was never sold in the UK, Emma Loach's credibility is blown out of the water.

They should have asked her: Do the McCanns pay you for appearing here as a witness?How much?Did you make a documentary on their orders?Is that documentary telling it as it was, a true rendering of the facts?

**********

Expletive thinking deleted

**********

Answer to Q 4: "I don't know, Judge"

Judge: "Are you telling the truth? Remember you are under oath here"

Answer: (...) witness breaks down in tears, unable to speak; taken away by two men in white coats

Eddie and Keela alerted to items and places concerned with the McCanns - and importantly to no other items or places.

According to Eddie and Keela, the body of Madeleine McCann lay lifeless behind the sofa in Apartment 5a, clinging to the only thing from which she could derive any comfort; a soft toy called 'Cuddle cat'.

Kate's book 'madeleine', Page 219: "Did they really believe that a dog could smell the 'odour of death' three months later from a body that had been removed so swiftly?"

After forensic analysis of the 'Last Photo' there is little doubt now that the pool photo CANNOT POSSIBLY have been taken on the Thursday 3rd May, but most likely on the Sunday 29th April. So, where was Madeleine at lunchtime on Thursday?

John McCann:"This was terrible for them, Kate dressed Amelie in her sister's pyjamas and the baby said: "Maddy's jammies, where is Maddy?"Martin Roberts:"If Madeleine's pyjamas had not, in fact, been abducted then neither had Madeleine McCann."Dr Martin Roberts: A Nightwear Job

Death Toll in McCann Case

Gerry McCann called for an example to be made of 'trolls'. SKY reporter Martin Brunt doorstepped Brenda Leyland on 2 October 2014 after a 'Dossier' was handed in to Police by McCann supporters. She was then found dead in a Leicester hotel room the next day. Brenda paid the price.

Colin Sahlke died suddenly in mysterious circumstances with a significant amount of morphine in his system. At the Inquest the coroner said there was no evidence as to how he had come to take morphine, and no needle mark was found.Gerry McCann had met Sahlkebefore he helped with the search but did not show any concern for his death. Link

Ex-Met DCI Andy Redwood had a "revelation moment" on BBC1's Crimewatch on 14th October 2013 when he announced that Operation Grange had eliminated the Tanner sighting - which opened up the 'window' of opportunity' from 3 minutes to 45 minutes, in accordance with their remit, to allow the staged abduction to happen.

The 'SunOnline' journalist, Tracey Kandohla: "A McCann pal told The Sun Online: "Some of the savings have been siphoned off from the Find Maddie Fund into a fixed asset account, which financial experts have advised them to do. It can be used for purchases like buying a house, or building equipment."